125:
list format. I am not sure if this topic can be written about without getting into original research. The talk page showcases this with the discussions on whether Japan and Brazil should still be included. Is China a super power or potential superpower? Is the USA still a superpower? It just seems to be open to so much interpretation and not many sources seem to discuss the topic in in an overarching way. As it is the sources used seem to hold vastly different views on what constitutes a superpower that there is no overall cohesion to many of the statements.
129:
citation overkill of sources saying how it is not sole superpower. The set up of the articles is a list of views of people that see the country or entity as a potential superpower, followed by those who don’t. The trouble with this set up is that it is giving the same weight to all opinions, which is not really justified (especially when the sources vary so much “real truth” to “New York times”. Obviously the tags need to be resolved (Citations, updates etc) for it to remain a good article.
269:
good job of defining what can and cannot be included. The above comment emphasises the original research problems, where editors are using their own judgement to decide what is a superpower, a potential superpower or no longer a superpower. The retain !votes are moot at this stage anyway as the article has citation needed tags and clearly fails
268:
Where is this definition? There is no introductory sentence or explanation on what makes something a superpower or for that matter a potential superpower. It just jumps straight into a section on China. Like I said this is more presented as a list than an article. Even as a list it does not do a very
253:
The article defined the term in a very concise and accurate manner. Speaking of facts, the U.S. is the only superpower in the world as of current. China and India are potential superpowers as they don't hold enough influence over the world. Russia and EU are other candidates but they are in decline.
297:
I haven't examined closely the individual country entries, but this article certainly fails 3a in that there is no discussion about what a potential superpower actually is. The very bare touching upon this topic in the lead was further soured by the first link I checked (Leika Kihara) having little
124:
I am not sure what to make of this article. The title is overly broad as any country could be a potential superpower. Emerging superpower would be better, but still carry many of the same problems. The opening sentence is vague in its definition (use of speculated). It is pretty much presented in a
128:
Anyway as to the criteria, the lead contains a lot of information not found in the article and lacks an overview of the actual body. It is contradictory, calling USA the only country that fulfils the criteria of a superpower (sourced to a reference that does not mention any criteria) followed by a
191:
There is absolutely no such issue with the article as it makes it certain that what really qualifies as 'potential superpower' through academia. We generally relied on the mainstream consensus to list who is a superpower and who would be a superpower, in line with
263:
69:
298:
to do with the sentence it supposedly supports. On criteria 4, I suspect the for and against article framing is also not a great way to structure each entry.
65:
285:
254:
The article describes these facts accurately. I don't see any serious concerns with the article, and I think the tags at the top should be removed. --
50:
42:
17:
99:: Delisted. After a month there is no consensus that the article should be a GA and serious concerns that have gone unaddressed.
307:
241:
226:
202:
181:
160:
117:
106:
90:
58:
235:
It had to be removed in April, but I got busy elsewhere. The relevance tag regarding EU was wrongly added though.
193:
303:
210:
The original research original research, undue, more citations needed and outdated tags were removed with
35:
259:
132:
I feel this needs to be judged by more editors than me so I am putting it through a community review.
237:
198:
299:
214:. I don't feel these issues have been adequately addressed, especially in light of a GA review.
282:
223:
177:
157:
102:
322:
255:
143:
270:
316:
274:
215:
173:
149:
135:
111:
196:. I think most of the issues cited here belong to talk page.
211:
85:
77:
46:
169:I have no idea who would benefit from reading this
8:
7:
18:Knowledge:Good article reassessment
24:
86:Watch article reassessment page
308:13:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
1:
286:00:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
264:22:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
242:05:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
227:00:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
203:06:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
118:02:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
182:14:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
161:01:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
339:
140:as the gar requester.
28:Potential superpowers
251:Continue GA status:
148:as the nominator.
91:Most recent review
194:WP:CONTEXTMATTERS
330:
189:Retain GA status
147:
139:
114:
100:
88:
82:
73:
54:
338:
337:
333:
332:
331:
329:
328:
327:
313:
312:
238:Aman Kumar Goel
199:Aman Kumar Goel
141:
133:
112:
95:
84:
63:
40:
34:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
336:
334:
326:
325:
315:
314:
311:
310:
291:
290:
289:
288:
247:
246:
245:
244:
230:
229:
205:
185:
184:
122:
121:
120:
93:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
335:
324:
321:
320:
318:
309:
305:
301:
296:
293:
292:
287:
284:
281:
280:
279:
272:
267:
266:
265:
261:
257:
252:
249:
248:
243:
240:
239:
234:
233:
232:
231:
228:
225:
222:
221:
220:
213:
209:
206:
204:
201:
200:
195:
190:
187:
186:
183:
179:
175:
172:
168:
165:
164:
163:
162:
159:
156:
155:
154:
145:
137:
130:
126:
119:
116:
115:
108:
104:
98:
94:
92:
87:
81:
80:
76:
71:
67:
62:
61:
57:
52:
48:
44:
39:
38:
33:
32:
29:
26:
19:
294:
277:
276:
250:
236:
218:
217:
207:
197:
188:
170:
166:
152:
151:
131:
127:
123:
110:
96:
78:
74:
60:Article talk
59:
55:
36:
27:
47:visual edit
144:OccultZone
256:1990'sguy
212:this edit
317:Category
271:WP:LEAD
208:Comment
174:Chidgk1
171:rubbish
136:Chidgk1
70:history
51:history
37:Article
323:GAR/66
295:Delist
283:(talk)
224:(talk)
167:Delist
158:(talk)
113:buidhe
97:Result
79:Watch
16:<
304:talk
278:corn
260:talk
219:corn
178:talk
153:corn
66:edit
43:edit
300:CMD
275:Air
216:Air
150:Air
319::
306:)
273:.
262:)
180:)
109:)
105:·
89:•
83:•
68:|
49:|
45:|
302:(
258:(
176:(
146::
142:@
138::
134:@
107:c
103:t
101:(
75:·
72:)
64:(
56:·
53:)
41:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.